|
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Statement on the Bulgarian Draft Laws on the Ombudsman
|
| |
By Ms. Kerstin Andre, Parliamentary Ombudsman of Sweden
Summary
It is important that the Parliament (National Assembly) has confidence in the ombudsman. At the same time, however, it is crucial that the ombudsman, in his or her supervisory work, has a great deal of independence visavi the Parliament itself; the Parliament is not supposed to interfere in the ombudsman "daily work". Maybe there are some rules that could be formulated in another way to avoid further complications... What does it mean for instance that the National Assembly shall adopt the Annual report (art. 25)? Of course the report shall be presented to and may be also discussed by the National Assembly, but what if the report is not adopted and how does this go along with the principle of independence of the ombudsman? There are also other rules that could be discussed from this point of view.
It is not corresponding with the nature of an ombudsman institution, as an extraordinary supervisory institution, to deal with matters concerning damages or fines. In Sweden we have a possibility (never used) to impose a fine only in a situation than an authority or official refuse to give us the assistance or documents asked for. If a question of damages arises, this is handled by the Chancellor of Justice (a governmental authority) or a court of law.
Another remark is that the ombudsman institution shall not be a substitute for the regular authorities. A rule in one of the drafts (§ 30) is formulated in such a way that it could perhaps be a misunderstanding regarding the (informal) limits of the ombudsman work; we never interfere while a case is still pending in a court or an administrative authority unless the complaint is about delay or strict formal matters (in the latter cases it is often the responsibility of the superior regular authority or court to criticize irregularities in the process).
In the Law of the Ombudsman draft there is a rule (article 19) that stipulates that the ombudsman, within three days, shall issue a reasoned statement, if he finds the complaint or signal reasonable. How is this rule meant to be implemented in practice? It is often very difficult to decide whether a complaint is reasonable or not before the authority complained about has had the opportunity to make comments. In such case the time limit seems too short...
In my country openness and transparency are keywords, also in the work of the ombudsman. Confidentiality is allowed only if it is according to rules in our Act of Secrecy. I think it might be a risk to allow the ombudsman to decide, by his or her own discretion, whether the information given in a particular case shall be confidential or not. To maintain the credibility it is important to abide by rules, known to everyone. In my country we do not accept anonymous complaints. But, if there is such substance in the complaint that it reaches the "level" where the ombudsman will take up the case on his or her own initiative, the complaint could be handled in that way. This is, however, a situation that is not very frequent.
There are some detailed rules which seem rather strange to me, i.e. about the work and doings of even the ombudsman’s spouse and there are very strict rules about membership in organizations. Is it the meaning that an ombudsman is not allowed to be a member of a private tennis- or golf club? | |
|
| |
|
CSD.bg |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| ©
Center for the Study of Democracy. |
 |
|
The web page you are trying to reach is no longer updated and has been archived. To visit us, please click here. |
|
